Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/551

Amandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

GOIBIBO Group Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

A.V.Singhal Adv.

10 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No. 551 dated 29.11.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 10.08.2022.

 

Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate S/o. S. Harbhajan Singh, Resident of House No.1348/26/1, Street No.9, Rishi Nagar Extension, Haibowal Khurd, Ludhiana-141001.                                                                                                                                                                                          ..…Complainant

•  

1. GOIBIBO Group Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office UG-07 (Front Side), TDI Mall, Rajouri Garden, Delhi-110027, M. No.+91-84471-13229.
2. GOIBIBO Group Pvt. Ltd. Corporate office:- 18^th Floor and 19^th Floor, Tower A, B & C, Epitome Building No.5, DLF Cyber City, Phase-III, Gurgaon, 122002.
3. Hotel Radha, Radha Homestay, Near Radhaswami Satsang Beas, Solan (H.P.) 173211 through its Manager.                                                                                                                                    …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Amandeep Singh, Advocate in person.

For OP1 and OP2          :         Sh. Manish Mann, Advocate.

For OP3                         :         Exparte.

ORDER 

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that on 12.07.2019, the complainant booked a room of OP3 through OP1 and OP2 online for 13.07.2019 to 14.07.2019. The booking was confirmed by OP1 and OP2 vide booking vide Id No.HTLAAZWAAW and receipt No.HDAR000032778589. The room was Class (2X) category with breakfast for two adults. The complainant paid booking amount of Rs.811/-  online through his account maintained with State Bank of India, Kitchlu Nagar Branch, Ludhiana. Believing that the complainant had a confirmed booking, he along with his pregnant wife left Ludhiana for Solan. On the way, the complainant called the management of OP3 hotel to confirm the location of the hotel but to his shock the manager of the hotel conveyed that if the payment of the room has been made online, no room could be provided as the hotel had not received any payment from OP1 and OP2. OP3 insisted that if the complainant wanted to stay in the hotel, he would have to pay cash. As a result, the complainant called the customer care of OP1 and OP2 and registered a complaint upon which a message was received on the mobile of the complainant. A representative of OP1 and OP2 namely Babita called on the mobile of the complainant at 07.54 PM and told the complainant that OP1 and OP2 would provide some alternate accommodation. The complainant told her that she was accompanied by his pregnant wife and lot of inconvenience  was caused to them as they were waiting for the room for the last two hours after reaching Solan but OP1 and OP2 failed to provide an alternate accommodation till 09.13.PM. As no alternative accommodation was provided by OP1 and OP2 to the complainant and the condition of the wife of the complainant was also getting deteriorated, he decided to come back to Ludhiana but when he reached Chandigarh, the condition of his wife became worse and he had to stop at Chandigarh and book a room at Hotel Akash for a sum of Rs.1000/-. The complainant got a legal notice served upon the OPs on 10.08.2019 but despite that the OPs have not refunded the booking amount nor replied to the notice. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be made to refund the booking amount of Rs.811/- along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, OP3 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.02.2021.

3.                The complaint has, however, been resisted by the OP1 and OP2. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP1 and OP2, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed by suppressing material facts. According to OP1 and OP2, they acted only as facilitators for confirming hotel booking on behalf of the customers and all online transactions conducted by OP1 and OP2 are governed by the user agreement to which parties are bound. The OPs further admitted having booked a room with OP3 from 13.07.2019 to 14.07.2019. The booking was made on 12.07.2019. According to OP1 and OP2, if the check-in was not allowed by OP3, OP1 and OP2 cannot be held responsible for the same nor any liability can be attributed to them on this ground. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CW1-1 along with documents Ex- Annexure-1 to Annexure-C9 and closed the evidence.  

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP1 and OP2 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. S. Suresh, Authorized representative of OP1 and OP2 along with documents Ex. RW1 to Ex. RW4 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the complainant in person as well as by the counsel for the OPs and have carefully gone through the record.

7.                Primarily, the grievance of the complainant in this case is that he booked a room with hotel of OP3 at Solan for stay from 13.07.2019 to 14.07.2019. The booking was made through OP1 and OP2 who confirmed the booking on 12.07.2019. A sum of Rs.811/- was paid online to OP1 and OP2 but despite the booking, OP3 did not allow the complainant and his wife at the appointed time on 13.07.2019 with the result that a lot of inconvenience was caused to the complainant and in the absence of any alternate accommodation, he had to return to Ludhiana but on the way the condition of his wife, who was pregnant, became worse and he had to stay overnight at Chandigarh by spending Rs.1000/-. The reason for not letting the complainant check-in given by OP3 was non-receipt of tariff from OP1 and OP2 as is clearly stated in para No.5 of the complaint. This fact has not been controverted by OP1 and OP2. In reply to para no.5 of the complaint in the written statement, it has not been claimed that the booking amount deposited with OP1 and OP2 by the complainant online on 12.07.2019 was transferred to OP3. Thus, it stands proved on record that since the amount paid online by the complainant to OP1 and OP2, was not received by OP3, the latter did not allow the complainant  to check-in. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP3. Thus, the deficiency of service, if any, is on the part of OP1 and OP2 as they did not transfer the booking amount to OP3. Therefore, the complainant in the absence of any alternative accommodation had to return to Chandigarh at odd hours of the night and in an emergent situation had to stay in hotel at Chandigarh by spending Rs.1000/-. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that it would be just and appropriate if OP1 and OP2 are made to pay Rs.811/- to the complainant along with composite costs and compensation of Rs.6,000/-.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order to OP1 and OP2 to refund Rs.811/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. OP1 and OP2 are further made to pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The complaint as against OP3 is, however, dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:10.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Amandeep Singh Vs Goibibo Group Pvt. Ltd.                         CC/19/551 

Present:       Complainant Sh. Amandeep Singh, Advocate in person.

                   Sh. Manish Mann, Advocate for OP1 and OP2.

                   OP3 exparte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with an order to OP1 and OP2 to refund Rs.811/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. OP1 and OP2 are further made to pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The complaint as against OP3 is, however, dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:10.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.